Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for a belief in God. The argument runs as follows:
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
Believers pull this one on me all the time, and cease to see how ridiculous it really is. They passionately say "You won't lose anything by believing!!" while utterly failing to see that one cannot simply wish themselves into believing something which has absolutely not one shred of evidence supporting it!
Beyond that, if by some stretch of incredulity a god actually did exist, do you really truly think he'd be stupid enough to fall for someone "believing" just as insurance against eternal damnation?
You people that keep pulling out Pascal's Wager as a legitimate argument supporting the need for a belief in a deity astound and confound me. Inconceivable!
I just feel like there's a large percentage of people in our society that just believe in God because their "supposed to" and that thats what expected. And that they keep to themselves what they really think in real life.
On the internet now, they have the opportunity to be honest and cut loose without fear of repercussion from anyone that matters to them. Thats a different story.
It is also a flawed concept because it only anticipates two possible outcomes. For example what if the for the sake of argument a supernatural power did end up existing and it was hypothetically the Roman Gods who were still angry at Christians for tearing down and defiling their temples all those years ago. Then anyone who made that wager would be in real trouble where as atheists and agnostics would be in less trouble. Not that this would be at all likely, but it is as possible as anything else if there is conciousness after death.
It is also a flawed concept because it only anticipates two possible outcomes. For example what if the for the sake of argument a supernatural power did end up existing and it was hypothetically the Roman Gods who were still angry at Christians for tearing down and defiling their temples all those years ago. Then anyone who made that wager would be in real trouble where as atheists and agnostics would be in less trouble. Not that this would be at all likely, but it is as possible as anything else if there is conciousness after death.
I agree. There are a lot more outcomes than just the ones mentioned here. And yet, just today I've had good old Pascal's Wager presented to me at least twice, as being a logical and sane road to take.
If believers would just man up and say something like "I know there's not one shred of scientific evidence supporting my beliefs, but I still believe them and they make me feel safe and loved and whole" then I'd have a LOT more respect for them than when they try to argue as if they actually have evidence and facts backing them up in their beliefs.
I agree. There are a lot more outcomes than just the ones mentioned here. And yet, just today I've had good old Pascal's Wager presented to me at least twice, as being a logical and sane road to take.
If believers would just man up and say something like "I know there's not one shred of scientific evidence supporting my beliefs, but I still believe them and they make me feel safe and loved and whole" then I'd have a LOT more respect for them than when they try to argue as if they actually have evidence and facts backing them up in their beliefs.
There is plenty of evidence, though. Take an objective look around and question if not for God....how DID we get here?
If believers would just man up and say something like "I know there's not one shred of scientific evidence supporting my beliefs, but I still believe them and they make me feel safe and loved and whole" then I'd have a LOT more respect for them than when they try to argue as if they actually have evidence and facts backing them up in their beliefs.
That is generally what I say about my beliefs. I have them because of my personal experiances and outside of that there really is no external evidence as such I would not really expect anyone else to believe the same thing.
That is generally what I say about my beliefs. I have them because of my personal experiances and outside of that there really is no external evidence as such I would not really expect anyone else to believe the same thing.
I agree with Randomstudent, I have my beliefs, they are mine, they suit me very well, they are based on my experiences, there is no scientific proof and I don't have to defend them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
